Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

srmeaney · 2005-04-20 10:54:37

Would humanity be better served with a single Agency being funded by the World?

Martian Republic · 2005-04-20 11:06:17

Would humanity be better served with a single Agency being funded by the World?

"NO"!

Larry,

srmeaney · 2005-04-20 11:10:35

Martian Republic Posted on April 20 2005, 13:06
"NO"!
Larry,

Why?

Palomar · 2005-04-20 11:37:47

*I also voted "no."

One space agency would likely wind up stagnating. Competition can be a good and healthy (and NEEDED) thing.

(And NO, this has nothing to do with "nationalism." Just in case anyone was wondering.)

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-20 11:37:48

*Laughs*

One reason: the International Space Station

End of story

srmeaney · 2005-04-20 11:54:52

*Laughs*
One reason: the International Space Station
End of story

Considering the ISS was a multiple Agency effort, you are still evading the question.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-20 13:38:00

No. And I'll be up-front about it, I think America can do it better than an international body. I'm more concerned with American interests than warm and fuzzy global love-fest fantasies. If other nations want to participate and it furthers our interests to have them do so, by all means welcome aboard. If they want to set up their own program, great. We can use a little competition to keep us motivated.

In short, let merit decide who shall reach the stars, not some arbitrary idea of "fairness" based on taking from those that do to cater to those who do not.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-20 13:55:06

*Laughs*
One reason: the International Space Station
End of story
Considering the ISS was a multiple Agency effort, you are still evading the question.

The ISS is such a joke that your question is really a rhetorical one

Commodore · 2005-04-20 14:58:57

Not under the current circumstances, no.

Grypd · 2005-04-20 16:04:39

NASA is a major source of the technological lead that the USA has over many countries. Do you see an international agency formed recieve all that NASA knows and not have it purloined by another goverment that could in the future be hostile.

There is no chance that the likes of ESA or NASA would wish to form one agency. Im sorry to say that Europe does not trust the USA that much. And if NASA and ESA cannot agree what chance has the formation of a unilateral space agencies that also involve the Chinese and Russians.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-04-20 20:04:36

Then create a new one under the United Nations called the UN Space Agency, It could start out managing the Outer Space Treaty and then work towards more active role in space development and exploration for the whole of humanity.

Leave all the Country Agencies running there programs but the rules and laws are controlled through the application in the world court, the forum to enforce the space treaty enacted into Global UN Law and binding on all citizens represented by the member states.

That would be more interesting then trying to get the other countries to work together.

Commodore · 2005-04-20 20:30:09

The UN can barely run itself, much less a space program.

The UN really needs to receive the Olde Yeller treatment, its holding us back. And by us I don't mean U.S., I mean the world in general.

But this is the wrong forum.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-21 05:08:40

It is quite possible that we'll see the UN cease to be an even marginally influential world body within a decade, maybe sooner...

Oh yes, I'm sure that intensely nationalistic space programs of various nations will be happy to throw their soverenty beneith the wheels of nameless unquestionable UN buracrats.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-21 05:09:41

No Nasa should not be merge into other space agencies. In fact some of what Nasa is doing needs to be placed back with the rest of the agencies that it services. As I have noted in another thread The use of Nasa resources for science other than space exploration sort of a thread of items that bug me.

They only way to consolidate all agencies would be to do away with all miltary rockets and there spying satelites. Which we know will never happen. Also any combined union would also require all space products be interchangeable to the raw blocks that build them. This in effect does away with competition and would cause companies to fold since there would be a glut of parts available.

Martian Republic · 2005-04-21 09:48:48

No Nasa should not be merge into other space agencies. In fact some of what Nasa is doing needs to be placed back with the rest of the agencies that it services. As I have noted in another thread http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2043]The use of Nasa resources for science other than space exploration sort of a thread of items that bug me.
They only way to consolidate all agencies would be to do away with all miltary rockets and there spying satelites. Which we know will never happen. Also any combined union would also require all space products be interchangeable to the raw blocks that build them. This in effect does away with competition and would cause companies to fold since there would be a glut of parts available.

Although I don't believe that NASA should not be merge with other space agencies in other countries, I do think that we should alter NASA as an organization. I think we should change the charter on NASA a little bit and redirect what NASA purpose it and what they are suppose to be trying to accomplish. I would make NASA kind of a governor ship type organization/explorer/technology development organization. I would setup a charter for NASA to build a small base or possibly small city on the moon in a twenty to twenty five years. With Mars Mission right behind it in a twenty to fifty year time frame to build a small city on Mars. I would off load most of the small rocket off to the private sector over the next five years and keep the shuttle for the time being so we continue to have access to space internally until we could develop the next generation shuttles to replace it. I may or may not have an Apollo type mission, but it would be sole purpose of putting on the Moon a Mars Society type habitat on the for temporary manning of our base while we build a more permanent base or city to live and to get something on the moon as fast as possible. Whether or not we have an Apollo type mission or not, I would have nuclear rocket being readied to go between the Earth and the Moon in 5 to 7 years and I would also have lunar shuttle being developed too. I would go with a full program of building gardens, water supplies, power supplies, mining equipment, refineries of one type or another, manufacturing and ship yard with three or four mile rail on it so it could throw that ship into space once we finished building it. Most of those big ship that we intend to send Mars will probably be manufactured on the Moon instead of on the earth. That way we get away from the Earth gravity well problem. We may still be manufacturing things for our space ship on Earth, but this would be our first attempt at getting away from having to send everything from Earth into space to meet our goals. Of course if we were to do this, we can't do it on NASA puny little budget. So I would authorize NASA a line credit from US Government and that was generated by the US Government in the amount of hundred to two hundred billion dollars per year for the next fifty years or so to pay for it. Hand the problem off to NASA and say here what we want and here the financial resource to accomplish that mission.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2005-04-21 09:58:33

But what I would not like to see in that senerio is that all funds are obsorbed and that fiscal responsibility to save some for later to also be part of the goal. Why buy the military toilet seat for $600 dollars when the store brand will do.

Fledi · 2005-04-21 10:43:26

I don't trust government agencies that much because

1. They tend to become overly bureocratic and inefficient with time.

2. Their work is always influenced by politics which makes it difficult to carry out long term projects. Look at Apollo and what could have become of it would it have been continued.
For a current example, I wonder what all the laid down aeronautics workers will do when there will be another change in government.

I think future space programmes will see more private initiatives which will compete among themselves. That is if private spaceflight will not be made impossible by government regulations.

Martian Republic · 2005-04-21 12:10:35

I don't trust government agencies that much because
1. They tend to become overly bureocratic and inefficient with time.
2. Their work is always influenced by politics which makes it difficult to carry out long term projects. Look at Apollo and what could have become of it would it have been continued.
For a current example, I wonder what all the laid down aeronautics workers will do when there will be another change in government.
I think future space programmes will see more private initiatives which will compete among themselves. That is if private spaceflight will not be made impossible by government regulations.

The problem with private enterprise doing it is:

They can't come up with hundred billions of dollars per year for fifty or so years to fund such a project. So it irrelevant whether one or more private companies or groups of individuals want to develop space. They can't come up with the investment capital. So it doesn't make any difference what there plans are, they have no way to finance it.

The second problem that you run into is people like Kenneth Lay and companies like Enron, that will ripe your colonization project off, if you don't have government regulation that out law such actives. The privatization of the California Electric Power grid come to mind. Where they deregulated Electricity in California and Kenneth Lay in Enron wrote the deregulation policies for California and Gray Davis signed it into law. Enron and other energy companies, ripped California off to the tune of 30 billion plus in over charges, price fixing, deliberately shutting electric generators to jack up prices for electricity. With hundreds of billions of dollars being invested in space development, your going to have thugs like Kenneth Lay and companies like Enron trying to ripe off every thing they can instead of wanting to build up the space colonies.

So we have two choices of how we intend to develop space.

We can be afraid that the US Government will change is policies as to developing space, which could happen, because it has happened in the past. But, at least they can come up with the money if they choose to and they can regulate how that money going to be use to try and block Enron type ripe off scams. And if an Enron scam does happen, they can send US Marshall to arrest Kenneth Lay and try him criminal actives if he violates our laws.

Your strategy, has neither the money nor the authority to make laws to enforce your plan to develop space if fraud or scam were used for quick bucks by these scam artist.

Larry,

Fledi · 2005-04-21 12:32:28

Of course things like that happen when you have a monopoly, even more if the monopoly is a large corporation instead of the state that has some obligations to the people at least.

There needs to be regulations to prevent that kind of monopoly from forming, but not for making every progress impossible under the disguise of "safety".

For the price of spaceflight I seriously question that the cost per person involved has to stay at the present level or could be much reduced by using other approaches to the problem.

For energy policy I can tell another story from here, where the ruling socialist/green coalition decided to scrap all nuclear plants (some of which were among the safest in the world) altogether and instead pump billions of euros into wind energy.
This of course is now insufficient to meet the demand, so they import cheap nuclear energy from France. If Europe's energy grid wouldn't be interconnected as much as it is, I guess we would be sitting in the dark pretty soon.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-21 13:04:26

I know that Burt testified before the science subcommitte on the commercial side of what it would take to get them going.
But can they partition for funding from congress if they can give a complete plan to justify what they are asking for with regards to financial support. Especially if the end result is what Nasa and the space exploration policy wants to have occur.
I guess what I am saying is why does Nasa have to be they only game in town for getting back to space.

Martian Republic · 2005-04-21 14:55:00

Unfortunately, most people don't understand the American Economic System and unfortunately even most Americans don’t understand the American Economic System either. The American Economic System is based on the US Government owning and controlling the Central Banking System instead of private individuals like Rothschilds or the Rockefellows owning the Central banking system. Under the US Constitution, Congress has the right to generate credit and use that credit. Under the US Constitution there is a Preamble that states the US Government will promote the "GENERAL WELFARE", the posterity of the United States and of the American People. The US Government can only do that if they control the Central Banking System inside the United States, because they will be able to set economic policies that will promote the welfare of the American People. With the Central Bank in Government hands instead of Private hands, the US Government will be generating those hundreds of billion of dollars instead of those private bankers generating those hundreds of billions of dollars. The only thing that the US Government can do with that credit is to invest in infrastructure or finance the productive sector to either develop new technologies and upgrade productive capability to produce more goods and services. But, if it left in private hands, they will charge interest on the hundreds of billion of dollars worth of credit generated, which over time will generate trillions of dollars worth of debt and cause inflation and or economic collapse.

But, the best way to end any attempt by some future President or Congress to change the US space policies, is to go full force into building a major project on the moon. Now these people on this board that want to downsize NASA are crazy. If you downsize Aero-space industries, you will decrease the viability to development space. I call it the Wal-Martization of the American Economy or if you will space. Before Wal-Mart, we had an industrial society, but now most of our cloth, shoes, TV, are made overseas now. The American manufactures that produced all those products either went out of business or they closed there factories inside the United States and laid off all there workers and now there on the unemployment rolls or are working at McDonalds at a fraction of the wages they were making before. For these people, buying something cheaper at Wal-Mart is not better for them. If you don’t have a job or your wages have collapsed in relationship to the product that your buying, then your not better off. Some people even refer to the people that work at NASA, the Space Army and they think it should be cut to the bone. But, if we do what I say we should be doing, that Space Army is going to have to increase in size to do what I say that we are going to be doing. Of course over time, we are going to be redirecting what that NASA Space Army will like and letting private enterprise run most of the shuttle for both the Earth and Moon and later on Mars also and run most of the transportation between those points too. We will have the NASA Space Army doing something else like setting up bases on the Moon, later Mars, observatories in space on Moon, and generally monitoring the space colonization process and occasionally helping it along in one way or another.

So you might ask, how does this convince some President or Congress not to mess with our space program?

Easy, it will take about ten to fifteen year to get enough invested into such a space initiative that it would cause a massive disruption inside the US economy if they change directions. You would have billions of dollars of contracts being canceled and massive lay-off in the aero-space industries as they shift those policy. With hundreds of thousands or possibly a million Americans heading for the unemployment office, that would have a tendency to piss a large number of Americans off. When you have that many people that have average or above average wages on such a large scale, it will have a cascade affect or pyramid effect or ripple effect throughout the US Economy, starting first in the communities where those factories are laying off at and extending to the rest of the US Economy. You have hundreds of thousands of displace workers that can’t afford there house payment and/or there car payment anymore, so they have to default on them. Then other section of the Economy be affected as the Aero-Space Sector collapses begins to affect other sectors of the Economy. GM, Ford, Chrysler can’t sell there cars, because nobody is working that can afford to buy there cars or at least a large enough number of people that can afford to buy there cars, will be in the market to buy cars. Speaking of GM or Ford, they are currently in trouble and there is talk to just dismantle or let them collapse, because they don’t want to bail them out like we did Chrysler a few years ago. This is stupid, if we let the manufacturing sectors of GM, Ford, Chrysler and the Aero-Space Industries, then that the end of the US Economy. These two area’s are the last major manufacturing sectors that are still left inside the United States. We have to save them, but we have too many car manufacturing plants inside the United States to employ everybody in the business of making cars. So we leave about half the car manufacturing plants building cars and we use the other half to build an entirely new products like, brand new trains, subways system for major city inside the United States. We need these new things to keep the US functioning and developing as a nation. So we will generate some new Government credit to finance them and build them. While we are generating the credit to rebuild America, we setup an aggressive long term low interest space program too. Our long term space program, will be the largest and biggest job creation program to date in human history. We are not going to leave the rest of the world out of this deal, there going to copy the same strategy so they can save there countries too and maybe they too will want to have a long term space program too. That fine, we can either all go together or we can go by ourselves or some of us may choose not to go at all. Every one can make there own choices. But, it will take fifteen to twenty years, to get the United States sufficiently involved in a major project like a base on the Moon to make it unlikely that the United States will change it mind and go in the opposite direction. But, it doesn’t mean that we couldn’t change our mind, but it would be very unlikely though.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2005-04-21 15:20:00

I know that Burt testified before the science subcommitte on the commercial side of what it would take to get them going.
But can they partition for funding from congress if they can give a complete plan to justify what they are asking for with regards to financial support. Especially if the end result is what Nasa and the space exploration policy wants to have occur.
I guess what I am saying is why does Nasa have to be they only game in town for getting back to space.

SpaceNut,

We may have vision of an Apollo type mission to go back to the Moon or possibly even to Mars. But, there are not quick shots or some mystery new technologies that going to make it happen for us. The Reason Why NASA or some space agency from some other country is the only game in town, is that they don't have to make a profit to start a space economy or have to make a profit to maintain a that space economy and if those space agencies are given the financing and long term credit from there national governments, they can also build the infrastructure that there space economy will function around and they still don't have to make a profit on it. So without functioning Central Government that controls it own credit and has an industrial base to work from, is the only ones that can get the job done. Like nobody else need apply for the job to colonize space if major governments of the world stay out of it or something like NASA doesn't authority to do it either.

Unfortunately, Private Enterprise can't do that.

Larry,

Grypd · 2005-04-21 17:59:21

NASA is best described as a very broad agency. Until recently its research was from everything from the origins of the universe to what haapens if you pollinate a plant upside down.

Fundamentally NASA was used as the civilian version of DARPA and though it did do projects with defence possibility it was often due to the Hi tech nature of these projects and the possibility of them rather than a need to create a better weapon. Still it happens and a lot NASA learned was later put to use for defence but then again ce la vie. The USA is a superpower and to the fundamentalists target numero uno 1 it has the right to do what it wants with what it learns as long as it does not interfere with countries that are not in conflict with the USA.

Im not even an American but I can understand this as should anyone who is willing to think. But in the world today are many tensions and countries that wish to be top dog. The UN is a not an impartial body actually its a talking shop with beauracracy. It does do good work with the WHO but even with that it has shalll we say slipped up. Those missing super flu organisms are a good example. I have trouble with an organisation that puts to the head of important committees like the human rights sub committee Zimbabwe one of the worst abusers.

Any UN space agenecy that was evolved to defend the treaty that is the outer space treaty would be handicapped from the start. The outer space treaty is fundemantally flawed and is just asking for a major space power to withdraw from it so making it worthless and there is set procedures for withdrawl too. This means any UN space organistaion would have all that is bad from NASA and none of the good and would likely not be under any "progressive" goverment control or influence and this would basically stop spaceflight and exploration.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-04-21 22:16:18

The UN Will not disappear, but will undego a new transformation as the security council is going through right now. GCN the odds for the UN to disappear would be the same for the US government turn socialist, because the rest of the world wouldn't allow it to happen, and America wouldn't allow it to happen and lose control through deal making.

Secondly, No member state has the right to act outside the world unless it is within the governing outer space treaty enacted by the UN and voted on by the member states including all the major space races.

Thirdly, the legal framework for space movement should be through a global body overseeing the various member state public-owned facilities and any current or future privately owned facilities.

Grypd · 2005-04-22 03:42:44

The UN Will not disappear, but will undego a new transformation as the security council is going through right now. GCN the odds for the UN to disappear would be the same for the US government turn socialist, because the rest of the world wouldn't allow it to happen, and America wouldn't allow it to happen and lose control through deal making.
Secondly, No member state has the right to act outside the world unless it is within the governing outer space treaty enacted by the UN and voted on by the member states including all the major space races.
Thirdly, the legal framework for space movement should be through a global body overseeing the various member state public-owned facilities and any current or future privately owned facilities.

Martin under article 16 of the outer space treaty any country may withdraw from this treaty if it gives one years notice. Also there 98 states that are signitories but this means there are a 95 countries out there who still have to sign. This is almost half the world. It does not give this treaty much global coverage does it.

The outer space treaty is a repressive set of guidelines designed to stop the West and Eastern blocs squaring up to each other in space. The cold war is over but the treaty remains as the anachorism it is.

A UN space agency designed with the purpose of so defending such a treaty would find the literal "rug" pulled from under it by any major space power that so decides to leave the treaty.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/o … html]outer space treaty full text link

This is the full treaty for you to peruse yourself.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-04-20 10:54:37

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#2 2005-04-20 11:06:17

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#3 2005-04-20 11:10:35

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#4 2005-04-20 11:37:47

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#5 2005-04-20 11:37:48

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#6 2005-04-20 11:54:52

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#7 2005-04-20 13:38:00

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#8 2005-04-20 13:55:06

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#9 2005-04-20 14:58:57

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#10 2005-04-20 16:04:39

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#11 2005-04-20 20:04:36

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#12 2005-04-20 20:30:09

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#13 2005-04-21 05:08:40

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#14 2005-04-21 05:09:41

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#15 2005-04-21 09:48:48

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#16 2005-04-21 09:58:33

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#17 2005-04-21 10:43:26

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#18 2005-04-21 12:10:35

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#19 2005-04-21 12:32:28

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#20 2005-04-21 13:04:26

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#21 2005-04-21 14:55:00

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#22 2005-04-21 15:20:00

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#23 2005-04-21 17:59:21

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#24 2005-04-21 22:16:18

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

#25 2005-04-22 03:42:44

Re: Should NASA be merged with other space agencies? - Creating a Unified, Single framework.

Board footer